QB is supposed to be the last piece to a re-build.. No? If no, explain your logic please.......

[PeterMP]

I also look at Matt Stafford. Yeah, the Lions are doing well, and they actually DID try to take some of the pressure of Stafford before, but injuries kinda frakked them over. But one of the main reasons Stafford has struggled before the Broncos game is that...well, he was playing kind of shell shocked. He'd feel the slightest hint of pressure and he'd either bail, or his footwork would go haywire. He'd have wide receivers running wide open down the field, but the pressure would be coming, his footwork would go screwy, and instead of standing in the pocket and trusting his protection would last, he either bailed, or he'd throw off balance, with poor fundamentals. So there's good and bad arguments for starting a guy early and letting him get wrecked; a guy like Stafford has been knocked out with injuries, so when the rush really comes, he loses a little bit of composure. He's still pretty damn good, but it's just something I noticed. And it's something that could very likely happen with Bradford as well.

So I'm an advocate of drafting and building the core structure of the team BEFORE you draft a quarterback.

And if the Lions had done that, they wouldn't have Stafford to worry about wrecking him (and the samething w/ the Rams with respect to Bradford).

I don't think there is a QB out there that doesn't lose a little bit of composure when the rush comes.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Flacco...Roethlisberger...those guys fell into a nice nest...there are several ways to build a team

Except Flacco kind of sucks and Roethlisberger is kind of awesome.

[KCClybun]

And if the Lions had done that, they wouldn't have Stafford to worry about wrecking him (and the samething w/ the Rams with respect to Bradford).

I don't think there is a QB out there that doesn't lose a little bit of composure when the rush comes.

But it's not just when the rush comes. It's when he THINKS the rush is coming. He bails, or he starts to move. The pressure isn't quite close to him, sometimes the pressure isn't really there at at all. He has time to throw, but he's rushing his throws anyway. I'm not saying it can't work both ways, but I'm saying there is an inherent danger with doing it that way when you don't have a team around him to start with. That's all I meant.

[Timmy Smith]

When you need to fill as many roster spots as we do, and when you're overhauling the entire team in order to switch to a 3-4 and to a ZBS on offense, it's going to take time. Last year's draft was as good as can be expected, and I hope we have many more like it. Another benefit of doing a complete overhaul is that you can basically take the Best Player Available when drafting: there are so many needs to fill, so just stockpile talent where you need it.

I agree with the original poster that the QB slot can be filled later rather than sooner. As always, though, when it comes to drafting, it's an art as much as it's a science. If an Aaron Rodgers or a Dan Marino falls into your lap unexpectedly at the end of the first round, you don't wait around.

I also hope that we keep trading down in the draft, whenever possible. You almost always get a higher overall "value" out of a trade-down trade, and you start stockpiling future draft picks. It's almost analogous to a healthy, long-term financial investment strategy.

[PeterMP]

But it's not just when the rush comes. It's when he THINKS the rush is coming. He bails, or he starts to move. The pressure isn't quite close to him, sometimes the pressure isn't really there at at all. He has time to throw, but he's rushing his throws anyway. I'm not saying it can't work both ways, but I'm saying there is an inherent danger with doing it that way when you don't have a team around him to start with. That's all I meant.

I'm not sure that people that can't stand in to the rush would be "good" QBs in the absence of when they get picked. Some people just don't like to take hits, and if they went to a good team where they didn't get hit much that wouldn't change, and they'd be looking to get rid of the ball quickly still.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Except Flacco kind of sucks and Roethlisberger is kind of awesome.

gotta love how people say ben fell into some great situation. they have a terrible oline that gets him killed constantly, yet somehow hes in a great situation.

the only things hes had is a good defense to back him up, but not a lot of help on offense.

flacco fell into a much better situation, and is about half the QB that ben is.

[PeterMP]

Generally, the idea of waiting to get a QB is stupid. It is hard enough to get a QB, you get it one you can, and you should even TRY and get one when you don't think you can (i.e. you should take risks in drafting QBs (e.g. even if there is a better player on the board, if the QB is EVEN close, you should take the QB) in hopes that you get lucky).

[Bang]

Generally, the idea of waiting to get a QB is stupid. It is hard enough to get a QB, you get it one you can, and you should even TRY and get one when you don't think you can (i.e. you should take risks in drafting QBs (e.g. even if there is a better player on the board, if the QB is EVEN close, you should take the QB) in hopes that you get lucky).

What if the QBs you can get are not ones you want?

~Bang

[skins island connection]

Maybe I missed it, but imo,;

A good qb helps all aspects of the team. In alot of cases, especially where a new qb is drafted, the running game is either poor or average at best. A good qb can mask alot of underlying problems, and in cases such as Manning, make poor or average running backs all pros.

There is a timing thing also; slowly building a team will get slow results, and by the time it gets almost set, certain players want out, get traded for possible better replacements, etc etc, and chemistry is messed up.

Take Luck for example; IF he's not a bust, and happens to come here, and plays well, especially in the passing game, defenses will begin to respect the pass, opening up the running game, which also helps out our own defense with more rest time.

Bottom line is coaching; there have been great coaches who have made poor qbs look great, and crappy coaches who completely ruin a top notch qb for life. Whoever the future qb is, I hope the coaches don't try to micromanage every aspect of the player's abilities, because that will most likely remove the "it" in which made that particular qb great in the first place...

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

What if the QBs you can get are not ones you want?

~Bang

want in one hand, **** in the other. see which one fills up first.

if our coaches are good coaches they can find a smart young QB to make work. or at least attempt. id rather attempt than do nothing.

[wrecker]

What if the QBs you can get are not ones you want?

~Bang

So far it seems the Shanahans really don't know what they want. They are too busy with the evaluation process.

[TheLongshot]

gotta love how people say ben fell into some great situation. they have a terrible oline that gets him killed constantly, yet somehow hes in a great situation.

the only things hes had is a good defense to back him up, but not a lot of help on offense.

flacco fell into a much better situation, and is about half the QB that ben is.

Actually, he had his lowest sack totals early in his career. He also had Bettis and Parker in the backfield and Hines Ward to throw to.

I wouldn't discount the defense, which helps give the QB the short field.

As for Flacco, he was pretty good until this year. I'm not sure what is happening with him right now.

[PeterMP]

What if the QBs you can get are not ones you want?

~Bang

Well, there has to be some sort of gradient. I'm not suggesting you go out and draft some guy that played QB in highschool when he turns 20 irrespective of what he's done since.

But generally, the QB will have to be a lot less likely to turn into a good player than whoever you are drafting to not draft the QB.

And let's fact it, at the end of the draft, they are really just rolling dice. That you were SURE that the player you took at the end of the draft was MUCH BETTER than the "top" QB left is laughable for the most part.

(I think Neild might be an exception because a 3-4 NT isn't too far behind a QB in terms of difficulty to get IMO, but when you have 6 picks in round 6 and 7 to NOT have ANY of them be a QB makes me think you either don't understand statistics and value very much OR you have a lot of confidence in yourself that you are essentially going to get "lucky" (i.e. that you can make luck (e.g. turn a guy that other teams have had on their roster into and didn't think much of into a good QB (e.g. John Beck and Rex Grossman)).)

[Darth Tater]

Actually, I'd ask someone claiming that a QB is your last rebuild piece to explain. Elite QBs are always among the most long lived regular players on a team and therefore offer a very good base around which to re-build around in the future if your current attempt fails and good teams are ALWAYS rebuilding anyway. They are directly responsible for 20-30% of all hits on them (in a normal pro offense) anyway. Development of WR and TEs are more dependent on having a good QB then the other way round since a high tolerance for frustration is something an elite QB has to have but not an elite WR or TE (who often have very low frustration tolerance). RBs need a QB who doesn't tip pre snap where the ball is going and who can make the hand off in a timely manner and deep enough. RBs also tend to have short careers and while elite RBs are hard to find, good RBs usually can be found. While OL are the first piece, you really only need one elite guy as far as talent, the rest can be below average although they do need to be smart and you can replace them overtime. Lines usually take several years to develop anyway and trash turns out to be good and even great more often than any other position. Hitting obvious mile stones is very important to the morale of your players and success (not necessarily wins but things that tell you your on the right track) also keeps loseritas at bay.

Last year we needed the one elite guy on the offensive line but we also needed a vet QB to chase out that loseritas. May have found the one elite talent we need on the line but the vet QB was a fail. Now our line will have multiple years in the saddle together and while we still need depth, we are in position to target the QB. However, if the QB we want is not available, he's not available, you don't reach and you have to take advantage if a better opportunity is available.

[SirClintonPortis]

Teams have little control on which position gets fixed before the others. If there such a QB prospect that Mike Shanahan is in absolute love with, he should take that prospect. If Shanahan doesn't like any of the prospects enough to take him at a certain draft position, he shoudn't.

[sportjunkie07]

What if the QBs you can get are not ones you want?

~Bang

i think shanny already played that card with Gabbert (a play that i approved of). he cant afford to do it again, and there should be at least one, maybe 2 QB's that we should want.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Actually, he had his lowest sack totals early in his career. He also had Bettis and Parker in the backfield and Hines Ward to throw to.

I wouldn't discount the defense, which helps give the QB the short field.

As for Flacco, he was pretty good until this year. I'm not sure what is happening with him right now.

actually his sack totals were low because he barely threw the ball his first two years and he missed 6 games. he was averaging 21 and 22 passes per game his first two years and wasnt asked to do much, every since then hes averaged 30+ attempts per game. 10 more dropbacks a game is a 160 more chances for him to get sacked, and their oline helps him out in every way lol. every season where hes gone over 400 attempts hes been top 4 in sacks. and he currently leads the NFL as of today.

their oline sucks, he (and aaron rodgers) are proof that if you find a great QB they can overcome oline issues.

[skinfan2k]

if there are QBs that Shanny wants and can't get him, you trade up. its hard a hard concept!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

i think shanny already played that card with Gabbert (a play that i approved of). he cant afford to do it again, and there should be at least one, maybe 2 QB's that we should want.

agreed. waiting for the perfect prospect is never going to happen. hes gotta man up and make something happen with a rookie.

[justice98]

Since the QB takes the longest to develop, I would think you'd want that player sooner rather than later.

[sportjunkie07]

agreed. waiting for the perfect prospect is never going to happen. hes gotta man up and make something happen with a rookie.

we had a convo post draft last year. you were irritated (and understandably so) that we did not come out of the draft with a qb. i was preaching that it was beneficial all along to wait until 2012 where the demand for a QB prospect would be less and the QB draft class would be stronger. if there is one thing that is worse than waiting a bit too long for a qb, its getting the wrong one and setting your franchise back 3 or 4 years.

the plan is coming into fruition, and, as your sig says, just 9 more miserable games until our future QB.

and on the plus side, we also got some really good players last year that we wouldnt have gotten if we snagged gabbert or traded up for locker.

[PeterMP]

we had a convo post draft last year. you were irritated (and understandably so) that we did not come out of the draft with a qb. i was preaching that it was beneficial all along to wait until 2012 where the demand for a QB prospect would be less and the QB draft class would be stronger. if there is one thing that is worse than waiting a bit too long for a qb, its getting the wrong one and setting your franchise back 3 or 4 years.

the plan is coming into fruition, and, as your sig says, just 9 more miserable games until our future QB.

and on the plus side, we also got some really good players last year that we wouldnt have gotten if we snagged gabbert or traded up for locker.

Where do you think there is going to be less demand for QBs?

Last year there were 4 QBs taken in the 1st round. The Dolphins, Colts, Broncos, and the Seahawks could easily all take 1st round QBs. Throw in us, and maybe you get a surprise (e.g. The Cards or the Browns have decided that their QB isn't good enough to pass on the guy that is there and take him (I could even see a team like the Chiefs taking a QB if they think there is real value there)), and you could easily end up with more 1st round QBs then last year.

(I'm not even going to bother on commenting on comparing the strength of a QB class for a bunch of guys that haven't played an NFL game as compared to a bunch of guys that have hardly played in the NFL.)

**EDIT**

I will add that if there is an increase in appearant value (i.e. more better players) that will actually drive up demand. More people will be willing to take a chance if they think there is a better chance they are going to get a better player.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Where do you think there is going to be less demand for QBs?

Last year there were 4 QBs taken in the 1st round. The Dolphins, Colts, Broncos, and the Seahawks could easily all take 1st round QBs. Throw in us, and maybe you get a surprise (e.g. The Cards or the Browns have decided that their QB isn't good enough to pass on the guy that is there and take him (I could even see a team like the Chiefs taking a QB if they think there is real value there)), and you could easily end up with more 1st round QBs then last year.

(I'm not even going to bother on commenting on comparing the strength of a QB class for a bunch of guys that haven't played an NFL game as compared to a bunch of guys that have hardly played in the NFL.)

Depending on who comes out, this does figure to be a better class than last year, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Last year 4 teams went QB in the first round, 2 more went in the top 4 picks of the 2nd. Plus, I don't think there's much doubt that Arizona, Seattle and Oakland wanted QBs. Likely Miami as well.

There just aren't as many teams as that hot for a QB this year. Maybe 6 (Indy- and that's more about Luck than just any QB- Miami, Seattle, Cleveland, Denver, Washington) could go for one high. That's pretty much the max.

[TheLongshot]

Indy- and that's more about Luck than just any QB

Actually, it highly depends on Peyton's health, which is still a very serious question. If the team decides that Peyton is too much of a risk, they might move forward with drafting the future at QB.

The comment might more apply to the Rams, whom if they ended up with the top pick (less likely since they won a game last week) might be tempted to trade Bradford. Course, that probably takes one of the other teams off the list, so it is about the same.

As to whether or not it is better class, it is hard to say. So far, we've had three rookies finding success on the field, which is a pretty high number. I think last year's class was better than expected.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Actually, it highly depends on Peyton's health, which is still a very serious question. If the team decides that Peyton is too much of a risk, they might move forward with drafting the future at QB.

The comment might more apply to the Rams, whom if they ended up with the top pick (less likely since they won a game last week) might be tempted to trade Bradford. Course, that probably takes one of the other teams off the list, so it is about the same.

As to whether or not it is better class, it is hard to say. So far, we've had three rookies finding success on the field, which is a pretty high number. I think last year's class was better than expected.

Of course it depends on Paeyton's health, but I'm going on the assumption that he is able to come back. I don't see any reason to assume the opposite.

I'm really not interested in assessing rookie QBs after half a season. But with how they were viewed heading into last year's draft and how this group will be viewed heading into this one, it certainly looks like a stronger class (again, that's dependent on exactly who comes out)